[1]W3C [2]XML Encryption WG

      [1] http://www.w3.org/
      [2] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Overview.html

  2001-December-03
  Chair: Joseph Reagle
  Note Taker: Joseph Reagle [3]text]

      [3] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Minutes/011203-tele.html,text

Participants

     * Joseph Reagle, W3C
     * Blair Dillaway, Microsoft
     * Ed Simon, XMLsec
     * Donald Eastlake, Motorola
     * Katherine Betz, IBM

News

Status of documents

     * Working through last call. Reagle created a [4]Last Call Issues
       document for tracking.

      [4] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/11/last-call-issues.html

Reviewing [5]Previous Items

      [5] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/Minutes/011119-tele.html

    1. Eastlake: add real life examples in section 5.5 to illustrate.
       Pending. Open for re-assignment.
    2. Action Hughes: ([6]XML Encryption Processing Model) Will
       investigate and send an email on Xerces implementation using
       XNI, or DOM when processing Element or Element Content.
       Pending.
    3. ACTION Reagle: add warning text on this point if it doesn't
       already exist, "decrypted content may not be well-formed XML."
       REDIRECT: Chrisitan will provide some text since he's best aware
       of the source of confusion.
    4. ACTION Eastlake: Edit section 5.5 . "Is it possible to change
       the order of the input to KM so that it will look like:"
    5. ACTION Dillway: consider Key threshold schemes on top of KeyInfo
       in one week.
    6. [DEL: ACTION Simon: send email to a list exploring scenario of
       Rivest's "what you retrieve is what you intended to retrieve."
       :DEL]
    7. [DEL: ACTION Eastlake: tweak the c14n in section 5, include
       exclusive canonicalization as an algorithm. :DEL]
    8. [DEL: ACTION Eastlake.I want it fixed that 168 bit keys are
       transported in 192 bit form, that's all. :DEL]
    9. [DEL: ACTION Reagle: change to a child element, cc:
       Merlin/Takeshi to see if they oppose. :DEL]
   10. [DEL: Section 3.5: The ReferenceList Element In the schema
       definition, why not use <choice> rather than <sequence>? :DEL]
       [DEL: ACTION Reagle: change to choice. :DEL]

      [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Aug/0031.html

Requirements

   ...

Draft

  Pending

     * [7]Takeshi Imamu
         1. Reagle: how to structure the schema so EncryptedData has a
            nonce on its CipherData, but CipherData doesn't?
            ACTION: to make the change to put the Nonce attribute in
            the EncryptedData element.
     * [8]Jiandong Guo
         1. Nonce and Key Wrap Algorithm: "It seems to me that with the
            key wrap algorithm specified in section 5.6.2, there is no
            way a nonce can be used, although you may still set up one
            in the corresponding CipherData element by the document."
            Eastlake [9]responded that if your keys have insufficient
            entropy, a nonce won't help you in any case.
     * [10]Blake Dournaee
         1. <AgreementMethod> question. "it doesn't look like XML
            Encryption actually specifies the logistics to perform the
            key agreement without also specifying actual encrypted
            data, which is impossible because the shared key hasn't
            been generated "
            Eastlake: it is not a key agreement protocoll itself, but a
            hint to the result of a previously agree to key.
            Teleconf agrees.

      [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Nov/0022.html
      [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Nov/0025.html
      [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Nov/0050.html
     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-encryption/2001Nov/0033.html

Misc.

     * [DEL: Next call on December 17, 2001. :DEL]